IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the respondent's actions did not amount to sexual misbehaviour, affirming the appropriateness of termination under Article 81(B) of the Education Code.

ORDER :

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Kulkarni learned standing counsel for petitioners and Ms. M.S.Aishwarya, learned counsel representing Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent on record.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent was working as Music Teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya-1, Air force Academy Dundigal, Hyderabad. While so, complaints have been received from girl students and parents that respondent was misbehaving in objectional manner with the students in classrooms. Considering seriousness of the allegations, 4th petitioner placed the respondent under suspension on 09.03.2009 and on review, extended the suspension for further period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher of the 5period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher of the 5period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher of the 5period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher of the 5period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher of the 5period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher of the 5period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher of the 5

4. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 30.11.2009, respondent preferred an appeal on 19.12.2009 before the 2nd respondent and also approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1111 of 2009 and the said O.A. was disposed of with direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent by duly granting personal hearing. Accordingly, the appellate authority granted personal hearing and respondent appeared before the appellate authority on 06.04.2010. The appellate authority vide order dated 03.05.2010 rejected the appeal, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 30.11.2009.

5. The respondent herein filed O.A.No.521 of 2010 challenging the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal vide its order dated 23.11.2012 disposed of the O.A.No.521 of 2010 by directing the petitioners herein to take back the respondent into service with the observation that the period from the date of removal till the date of taking back has to be treated as dies-non and the respondent shall not be entitled for any emoluments for that period. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2012, the petitioner-institution filed the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Tribunal committed serious error in holding that the acts of misconduct of the respondent, as complained by the girl students, do not amount to sexual misbehaviour and it is not a case of termination of service of the respondent under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code, though the acts may attract punishment. He further contended that Article 81(B) of the Education Code empowers the competent authority to terminate the services of an employee for the guilt of immoral behaviour towards the students. He also referred to Article 81(B) of the Education Code elaborately and contended that the procedure prescribed for holding an enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘the Rules,1965’) is applicable to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and the same is dispensed with provided that Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not expedient to